Appeal No. 1998-1548 Page 4
Application No. 08/660,304
rejections advanced by the examiner, and the evidence of
obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the
rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants'
arguments set forth in the brief along with the examiner's
rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner's answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in
the particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art the invention as set forth in claims 1-22.
Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-8, 11-17, 19,
and 21-22 based on the combined teachings of the APA, Oka, and
Tominaga. The examiner presents two alternative lines of
reasoning.
In the first line of reasoning presented, the examiner's
position (answer, pages 4 and 5) is that in Figures 2 and 3 of
the APA, metal layer 18 corresponds to the claimed base pad,
layer 20 corresponds to the claimed anti-reflective-coating,
and that passivation layer 22 corresponds to the claimed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007